Further trimming it to sections that require a response. On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> >>> >>> *** Minor issues *** : >>> >>> -- section 2.2, last paragraph: >>> >>> The IKE mention lacks context. Do you mean to suggest IKE with IPSec? I >>> assume so, but there's been no mention of IPSec so far. >> >> No. It implies the use of IKEv2 protocol for performing mutual >> authentication and establishing SA. There is no suggestion of using IKE with >> IPSec. >> >> How about this? >> >> For point-to-point key management IKEv2[RFC5996] protocol provides ... > > 5996 describes IKEv2 as a component of IPSec, and a key-management mechanism > for ESP and AH SAs. Now, I won't claim to be an IKE expert by any extent, but > I think that if you mean to use IKE _without_ IPSec it would be good to add a > sentence or two pointing that out. Or is there some other reference that > could be used that describes using IKEv2 for non-IPSec SAs? Added this sentence. Although IKEv2 is discussed as a component of IPsec, KMP can use just the mutual authentication and SA establishment portion of IKEv2. > >> >>> >>> *** Nits/editorial comments ***: >>> >>> -- IDNits indicates some unused and obsoleted references. Please check. >> >> Found one unused reference and have removed it. > > Seems like there were more than one. From IDNits: > > == Missing Reference: 'IRR' is mentioned on line 92, but not defined > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC2409' is defined on line 585, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC3547' is defined on line 588, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2385 (Obsoleted by RFC 5925) > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 2409 > (Obsoleted by RFC 4306) > > -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3547 > (Obsoleted by RFC 6407) I have removed these unused references. > >>> >>> -- section 4, 2nd paragraph: "In addition Improving TCP’s Robustness to >>> Blind In-Window Attacks." >>> >>> sentence fragment. >> >> Changed it to say: >> >> In addition, the recommendations in Improving TCP's Robustness to Blind >> In-Window Attacks >> > > Am I correct in assuming this merges with the following sentence? Otherwise, > it's still a fragment. > Changed it to: In addition, the recommendations in RFC 5961 should also be followed ... Mahesh Jethanandani [email protected]
